neuk34 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Hello, I upgraded from 5.0 to 6.1 using a fresh install. Everything worked properly. I noticed that disk1 was read-only. So, I followed the reiserfs process to fix this issue : http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php/Check_Disk_Filesystems#Drives_formatted_with_ReiserFS_using_unRAID_v5_or_later - resiserfsck --check /dev/md1, then - reiserfsck --fix-fixable /dev/md1 Results : - New folder appeared (lost+found) - my drive is still read only - shares disappeared - the array needs now few minutes to start. could you please help me to fix ? Thanks nas-diagnostics-20150831-1639.zip Link to comment
itimpi Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 The syslog shows that disk 4 has corruption and is being mounted as read-only as a result. You will need to run reiserfsck against this disk as well After you have run reiserfsck to fix a disk there is a good chance that you will need to rest the permissions because any files/folders recovered by reiserfsck can have their owner changed to 'root' The way to do this is is to run the Tools->New Permissions option and limit to the disk(s) against which you ran reiserfsck. Link to comment
RobJ Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 After you have run reiserfsck to fix a disk there is a good chance that you will need to rest the permissions because any files/folders recovered by reiserfsck can have their owner changed to 'root' The way to do this is is to run the Tools->New Permissions option and limit to the disk(s) against which you ran reiserfsck. Good idea. Sounds like something we should add to the wiki page? Link to comment
neuk34 Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 disk 1 is still read only, so i launched a new test. what should I do now? root@NAS:~# reiserfsck --check /dev/md1 reiserfsck 3.6.24 Will read-only check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/md1 Will put log info to 'stdout' Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes if you do):Yes ########### reiserfsck --check started at Mon Aug 31 17:05:55 2015 ########### Replaying journal: Trans replayed: mountid 31, transid 10449, desc 2609, len 1, commit 2611, next trans offset 2594 Trans replayed: mountid 31, transid 10450, desc 2612, len 1, commit 2614, next trans offset 2597 Trans replayed: mountid 31, transid 10451, desc 2615, len 1, commit 2617, next trans offset 2600 Trans replayed: mountid 31, transid 10452, desc 2618, len 1, commit 2620, next trans offset 2603 Trans replayed: mountid 31, transid 10453, desc 2621, len 1, commit 2623, next trans offset 2606 Trans replayed: mountid 31, transid 10454, desc 2624, len 1, commit 2626, next trans offset 2609 Replaying journal: Done. Reiserfs journal '/dev/md1' in blocks [18..8211]: 6 transactions replayed Checking internal tree.. / 1 (of 10)/ 1 (of 170)/ 1 (of 86)bad_path: block 32770, pointer 0: The used space (3260) of the child block (8211) is not equal to the (blocksize (4096) - free space (780) - header s/ 68 (of 170)/ 56 (of 151)bad_path: block 11403266, pointer 55: The used space (3996) of the child block (11456145) is not equal to the (blocksize (4096) - free space (144) - header size (24)) / 71 (of 170)/ 3 (of 133)bad_path: block 191070210, pointer 2: The used space (4036) of the child block (130324677) is not equal to the (blocksize (4096) - free space (76) - header size (24)) / 2 (of 10)/149 (of 170)/ 68 (of 86)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 116850690: The item header (0) has not cleaned flags. bad_item: vpf-10570: block 116850690: The item header (1) has not cleaned flags. bad_item: vpf-10570: block 116850690: The item header (2) has not cleaned flags. bad_item: vpf-10570: block 116850690: The item header (3) has not cleaned flags. bad_item: vpf-10570: block 116850690: The item header (4) has not cleaned flags. bad_item: vpf-10570: block 116850690: The item header (5) has not c/ 86 (of 86)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980673: The item header /150 (of 170)/ 1 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980674: The item header (0) has not c/ 2 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980676: The item header (0) has not c/ 3 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980677: The item header (0) has not c/ 4 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980678: The item header (0) has not c/ 5 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980679: The item header (0) has not c/ 6 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980680: The item header (0) has not c/ 7 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980681: The item header (0) has not c/ 8 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980682: The item header (0) has not c/ 9 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980683: The item header (0) has not c/ 10 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980684: The item header (0) has not c/ 11 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980685: The item header (0) has not c/ 12 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980686: The item header (0) has not c/ 13 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980687: The item header (0) has not c/ 14 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980688: The item header (0) has not c/ 15 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980689: The item header (0) has not c/ 16 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980690: The item header (0) has not c/ 17 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980691: The item header (0) has not c/ 18 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980692: The item header (0) has not c/ 19 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980693: The item header (0) has not c/ 20 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980694: The item header (0) has not c/ 21 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980695: The item header (0) has not c/ 22 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980696: The item header (0) has not c/ 23 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980697: The item header (0) has not c/ 24 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980698: The item header (0) has not c/ 25 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980699: The item header (0) has not c/ 26 (of 170)bad_item: vpf-10570: block 317980700: The item header (0) has not c/ 27 (of 170)bad_path: The left delimiting key [1508 1510 0x6c1c001 IND (1)] of the node (317980701) must be equal to the first element's key [1508 1511 0x0 SD (0)] within the node. / 3 (of 10)/ 29 (of 86)/ 16 (of 85)bad_path: The right delimiting key [1592 1623 0x1 IND (1)] of the node (281247750) must be greater than the last (10) element's key [1592 1623 0x1 IND (1)] within the node. / 17 (of 85)bad_path: The left delimiting key [1592 1623 0x1 IND (1)] of the node (281247751) must be equal to the first element's key [1592 1623 0x56001 IND (1)] within the node. / 26 (of 85)bad_path: block 70772064, pointer 25: The used space (4068) of the child block (272007177) is not equal to the (blocksize (4096) - free space (1132) - header size (24)) / 6 (of 10)/ 50 (of 170)/ 67 (of 170)block 473268225: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (473268225),/ 51 (of 170)block 473370770: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (2) expected the problem in the internal node occured (473370770),/ 7 (of 10)/ 58 (of 170)/ 67 (of 86)block 476906207: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (476906207),/ 59 (of 170)/ 25 (of 86)bad_path: block 355724020, pointer 24: The used space (4044) of the child block (417333270) is not equal to the (blocksize (4096) - free space (92) - header size (24)) /104 (of 170)/ 21 (of 86)bad_path: block 452984851, pointer 20: The used space (4024) of the child block (151388161) is not equal to the (blocksize (4096) - free space (1600) - header size (24)) / 25 (of 86)block 476906208: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured/ 8 (of 10)/ 2 (of 170)/167 (of 170)block 476909781: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (476909781),/ 3 (of 170)block 476909831: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (2) expected the problem in the internal node occured (476909831),/ 9 (of 10)/ 91 (of 128)/ 5 (of 86)bad_path: block 355724420, pointer 4: The used space (4060) of the child block (308216073) is not equal to the (blocksize (4096) - free space (156) - header size (24)) / 15 (of 86)bad_path: The right delimiting key [5523 5525 0x1 IND (1)] of the node (392069121) must be greater than the last (11) element's key [5528 5532 0x1 DRCT (2)] within the node. / 16 (of 86)block 476910365: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occuredfinished Comparing bitmaps..vpf-10640: The on-disk and the correct bitmaps differs. Bad nodes were found, Semantic pass skipped 11 found corruptions can be fixed only when running with --rebuild-tree ########### reiserfsck finished at Mon Aug 31 17:28:27 2015 ########### root@NAS:~# / 16 (of 86)block 476910365: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected Link to comment
neuk34 Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 Disk 4 test. root@NAS:~# reiserfsck --check /dev/md4 reiserfsck 3.6.24 Will read-only check consistency of the filesystem on /dev/md4 Will put log info to 'stdout' Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes if you do):Yes ########### reiserfsck --check started at Mon Aug 31 18:25:34 2015 ########### Replaying journal: Trans replayed: mountid 26, transid 11535, desc 7014, len 1, commit 7016, next trans offset 6999 Trans replayed: mountid 26, transid 11536, desc 7017, len 1, commit 7019, next trans offset 7002 Trans replayed: mountid 26, transid 11537, desc 7020, len 1, commit 7022, next trans offset 7005 Trans replayed: mountid 26, transid 11538, desc 7023, len 1, commit 7025, next trans offset 7008 Replaying journal: Done. Reiserfs journal '/dev/md4' in blocks [18..8211]: 4 transactions replayed Zero bit found in on-disk bitmap after the last valid bit. Checking internal tree.. / 1 (of 9)/128 (of 170)/ 17 (of 87)block 427320253: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (427320253),/129 (of 170)block 427320254: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (2) expected the problem in the internal node occured (427320254),/ 2 (of 9)/ 6 (of 170)/150 (of 170)block 425270901: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (425270901),/ 9 (of 170)/150 (of 170)block 425787549: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (425787549),/ 11 (of 170)/ 4 (of 170)block 425984073: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (425984073),/ 12 (of 170)/ 9 (of 170)block 426161356: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (426161356),/ 13 (of 170)block 426325468: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (2) expected the problem in the internal node occured (426325468),/ 4 (of 9)/ 32 (of 170)/ 26 (of 170)block 483491841: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (1) expected the problem in the internal node occured (483491841),/ 33 (of 170)block 483641156: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (2) expected the problem in the internal node occured (483641156),/ 5 (of 9)block 475191955: The level of the node (0) is not correct, (3) expected the problem in the internal node occured (475191955), whole subtrefinished Comparing bitmaps..vpf-10640: The on-disk and the correct bitmaps differs. Bad nodes were found, Semantic pass skipped 10 found corruptions can be fixed only when running with --rebuild-tree ########### reiserfsck finished at Mon Aug 31 18:32:56 2015 ########### What should I do? I don't want to make any mistake : Important Note!!! Do NOT run reiserfsck with the --rebuild-sb or --rebuild-tree options, unless you are instructed to by the output of a previous run of reiserfsck or by an expert user! Link to comment
RobJ Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Both runs are instructing you to rerun with the --rebuild-tree option, so yes, that's what you need to do. Sorry, this is a major task, and *may* involve a little data loss, and may also involve extra handwork, dealing with any files placed in a 'lost+found' folder it may create. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.